I grew up on Disney. I like every other kid loved Disney movies growing up. I still love the classics. But I feel that in the last decade or so, Disney has become a monster, totally divorced from their roots, and they've gotten to be too large; I feel they've become just another soulless corporation, and that the company run by Walt Disney (who is a hero of mine) and even the Disney of the late 80s-mid 90s is long dead...Does anyone feel in any way similar, and kind of dislike what Disney has become?

Nope - I think this is a golden age of Disney for Disney fans. Parks are at top shape and finally giving fans new content with respecting the old. More movies and programing than you can shake a stick at. High to super high production values. Hell Disney saved Star Wars from Lucas. Even the food at the parks is at a all-time high. Tiki bars rock also.

I grew up on Disney. I like every other kid loved Disney movies growing up. I still love the classics. But I feel that in the last decade or so, Disney has become a monster, totally divorced from their roots, and they've gotten to be too large; I feel they've become just another soulless corporation, and that the company run by Walt Disney (who is a hero of mine) and even the Disney of the late 80s-mid 90s is long dead...Does anyone feel in any way similar, and kind of dislike what Disney has become?

I actually wholeheartedly agree with you here. I too have fond memories of watching the Disney animated classics as well as Disney's family-friendly live-action films (Old Yeller and Davy Crockett come immediately to mind).

The Disney animated features have been on a downward spiral since the early 2000s. The last great one was The Lion King. Most of the other ones in the late 1990s were at least watchable. This cannot be said for what they have been releasing since. Disney produced very few decent live-action films during this time as well (except maybe National Treasure and a couple decent sports films). And don't get me started on the garbage that they air on Disney Channel. It's ridiculous!

Missed you at the Food and Wine Festival last week. Me and kiddo strolled through DCA.

I need to up my SoCal work. Hopefully some events later this year.

I totally disagree about Disney TV as junk. ABC to me is one of the better networks and ESPN is on top of its game. As far as movies I stopped watching cartoons a long time ago but the Pixar movies seem to be pretty loved. And the Tiki Bars - gotta love the Tiki bars!

I totally disagree about Disney TV as junk. ABC to me is one of the better networks and ESPN is on top of its game. As far as movies I stopped watching cartoons a long time ago but the Pixar movies seem to be pretty loved. And the Tiki Bars - gotta love the Tiki bars!

I think Duaner meant the Disney Channel itself, which, in the past, aired a lot more stuff from the archives and parks-related specials than it currently does.

ABC is in the midst of a renaissance, though. Great slate of sitcoms on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and its soapy thrillers do what they do well.

I can't say I'm in love with the current state of the parks, compared to the early-to-mid-90s (EPCOT's heyday), but I acknowledge that things look a lot better in California than in Florida, give or take a Court of Angels.

I totally disagree about Disney TV as junk. ABC to me is one of the better networks and ESPN is on top of its game.

My post about Disney Channel garbage was definitely directed at the Disney Channel itself (the one that bears the name of the late great company founder), not the other networks that it owns. Although, thinking about it, I have not watched ABC in years and ESPN's coverage of MLB and NFL is inferior to their competitors.

Anyway, I think the initial post was referring more to the things that flaunt the "Disney" name as opposed to the other subsidiaries such as ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel Studios.

Get some weather and a dependable/sustainable source of water and then let's talk.

Seriously, this thread reminds me of the disappointment voiced by the first settler's in Disney's Celebration community back in the '90's.

I submit the Disney of our youths (of whatever generation) never was -- it's a subjective construct.

Look at any diversified multinational and you'll never find all cylinders firing at the same time. Disney is no different.

So while I agree with Roundshort that ESPN is killing it in content and programming, I submit ESPN won't be the cash machine that it has been. I also agree with the good Professor that the parks (at least Walt Disney World Orlando) could be better (Fantasyland redesign miss, too much crowding -- and bear in mind I lived in New York City for 9+ years so I know crowds -- and no recent 'wow' attractions -- though I was last there for Thanksgiving and didn't see the new Star Wars stuff but based on the Commercials, I don't think I'm missing anything).

Most important to me, however, is film -- and the fact that Disney has not screwed up the Marvel Cinematic Universe is huge. If you had told me as a dorky 10 year back in the late 1970's reading Captain America and Invader's comic books that I'd be watching films like Civil War and Winter Soldier as an adult, I wouldn't have believed it.

So me? I'm happy.

. . . .at least until the next Big Hero 6 pile of corporate focus group produced hogwash comes along -- and then I'll grab my pitchfork and join you.

And JBrod - have to argue the parks are fine. The crowds are just a result of their own success. Never before has there been such diversity. The live action shows, the rides, the food, the tiki drinks...

And JBrod - have to argue the parks are fine. The crowds are just a result of their own success. Never before has there been such diversity. The live action shows, the rides, the food, the tiki drinks...

. . .as a family man, the boozing in EPCOT is a bit of a drag. The kids saw some boorish behavior. Which is alright . . . and interesting, because there was a lot of twenty something drinking in Universal's Wizarding Worlds and it wasn't as sloppy (at least what I saw of it) as what I saw at EPCOT. The drinking around the world stuff is institutionalized.

Here's one of the cuter clips (with some production value & I'm a sucker for anything with Fast & Furious music)

That said, as far as Disney and alcohol goes in general, I like the balance in Disney's 4 parks. It just so happens that I like EPCOT and there's some irony in that the area around The American Experience is Beer Garden II.

(and for the record, EPCOT doesn't know how to pull a pint based on the one in the video above)

Joe, you have a point. Epcot needed an identity so drinking it was. As a 5 year veteran of the Epcot food and wine festival that aspect is huge. Also, there is huge cash in booze. There is a reason they put in a great tequila bar in Mexico. Germany's restaurant has always been a beer hall that is always celebrating October fest. The pub in England has always served fresh English and Irish beer. But give them credit for not serving booze in the Magic Kingdom.

You prove my point. Disney needs to bring kids to Epcot so they have taken the classic almost to fast for walker speed boat ride out to give us frozen.

Also don't forget Epoct is almost as much for the locals as for the tourists.

I took your comments above to mean the Disney ceded EPCOT's identity to alcohol -- which would be inconsistent with Disney putting their only Frozen attraction at ground zero amidst all the boozing. I submit the decision to put the Frozen attraction in Norway was not motivated by a desire to bring more kids to EPCOT but that Disney had just completed a major overhaul of Fantasyland in the Kingdom and there just wasn't any room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders112390

It's a shame Walt's vision for EPCOT never came to pass.

Well, we got Celebration and EPCOT. The U.S. just isn't ready for full on modern though Zaha Hadid was getting us there.

I took your comments above to mean the Disney ceded EPCOT's identity to alcohol -- which would be inconsistent with Disney putting their only Frozen attraction at ground zero amidst all the boozing. I submit the decision to put the Frozen attraction in Norway was not motivated by a desire to bring more kids to EPCOT but that Disney had just completed a major overhaul of Fantasyland in the Kingdom and there just wasn't any room.

Well, we got Celebration and EPCOT. The U.S. just isn't ready for full on modern though Zaha Hadid was getting us there.

To be honest it has been years since I have actually been a park. I do like the resorts. I am not sure you could get me into a park again. They are all too crowded. Which is a sign of how much people love them. So they must be doing something right!

Considering what Travers went though in getting the first to screen, I'm not entirely sure the Company can adequately convey the 2nd or 3rd visits she had to 17 Cherry Tree Lane with the same sort of magic.

Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?

Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?

Emily Blunt, apparently, who certainly seems a credible choice, if such a project is to exist. As does, by the way, Lin-Manuel Miranda for composer, who seems as likely as anyone to remember that one of Mary Poppins's best songs in its uniformly great score was about a bank.

It's interesting. The Iger regime has largely abandoned the Eisner taste for direct-to-video sequels in favor of live-action remakes of animated films, which can easily be ignored. Sure, there's some kind of Pete's Dragon project happening, but I confess I've never seen that film's appeal, so a second attempt isn't such a bad idea. But Mary Poppins is the truest masterpiece in Disney's non-animated canon. Maybe that makes a revisiting inevitable, but also a little bit unwelcome.

Curious bit of math: the original 1964 film took place in 1910. This sequel is likely to be released in 2018, judging from Variety's sense of open live-action slots. 2018-1964=54. 1964-1910=54. Will Julie Andrews's Poppins bookend the film to segue us into a younger Poppins, since, after all, the character is inconceivable in the 1960s?

Emily Blunt, apparently, who certainly seems a credible choice, if such a project is to exist. As does, by the way, Lin-Manuel Miranda for composer, who seems as likely as anyone to remember that one of Mary Poppins's best songs in its uniformly great score was about a bank.

Well I'll be a monkey's cousin...uncle, no Jungle Book pun intended.

Quote:

It's interesting. The Iger regime has largely abandoned the Eisner taste for direct-to-video sequels in favor of live-action remakes of animated films, which can easily be ignored.

It's been a risky bet in my eyes, but I've yet to be disappointed. To that end, I haven't exactly been wowed, either. Makes you wonder if the bean counters want my money once, or if they're hoping to get it, over and over.

Of all their products, their live films (for me) have the least value.